Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We are unlikely to find fault on some elements. We will not reinvestigate the complaint and are unlikely to add to the Council’s reply. We would not achieve Ms X’s aims.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council’s children services team dealt with her family and its response to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X which included the Council’s reply to her.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background events

5. In March 2023 Ms X’s husband was arrested for sexual offences. The Police attached bail conditions restricting his contact with children. They have one child who lives with them, Z. Mr X was sentenced in June 2024 to a custodial sentence suspended for two years and a ten year sexual harms prevention order. The bail conditions lapsed at the end of the court case.
6. The Council’s children services team then decided it needed to consider whether Z needed protection. It decided to hold an initial child protection conference (ICPC). It provided reports to that ICPC. The Council held the ICPC in September 2024. It recommended the Council have a child protection plan (CPP). The Council accepted that recommendation.
7. As part of the CPP the Council commissioned a risk assessment. That concluded in January 2025. The Council held a review CPC in February 2025. It considered the new risk assessment. The CPP and children services’ involvement ended.
8. Ms X complained to the Council about how officers had approached the case, the content of documents and information given to the CPCs and the Council’s decisions. The Council considered the complaint within its Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure, even though as a child protection case, it did not need to do so. This ended in December 2025. It upheld some complaints. It decided some others could not be proved or disproved.
9. Ms X complained to us. She is unhappy with the whole experience of children services involvement. She, in particular, feels the Council has approached the case in a general way rather than looking at the individuals involved and the specifics.

Analysis

10. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
12. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
13. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
14. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
15. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
16. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We will not do so in this case.
17. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council assessing and deciding to call an ICPC for a family where one of the parents has a conviction for child sex offences. Nor are we unlikely to find fault in it carrying out a risk assessment.
18. We cannot investigate what happens at the CPCs. The CPC is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
19. We can look at the remedy the Council has provided for the faults it has accepted. Ms X has told us what outcomes she seeks which she believes the Council has not yet provided:

Formal, Meaningful Apologies Admitting Fault and Consequences of those faults –

20. The Council has already agreed to and offered apologies for the faults it accepts. We are unlikely to achieve more.

Correction and Reissue of All Documents Containing False Statements –

21. Ms X has the right to request records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual inaccuracies are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, she can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.

Formal and Official Withdrawal of the Child Protection Plan –

22. The Council ended the CPP in February 2025. We would not usually recommend the removal of a disputed CPP from a child’s records. The Council has already agreed to Ms X placing her own statement on the record. We would be unlikely to achieve more.

Mandatory Recording of All Meetings

23. This is a matter for the Council to consider and consult in compliance with human resources practices. We are unlikely to achieve this.

Disciplinary Action

24. We cannot achieve this outcome.

Legal Action

25. Ms X would like legal action against the officers involved. This is not an outcome we can achieve.

Substantial Compensation

26. We could only recommend a payment for injustice that has been directly and solely caused by the Council’s faults not by the offence and inevitable consequences of that offence.
27. Our remedies aim to try to put the person back in the position they would have been if the fault had not happened. They are not intended to punish the organisation in the way a court might, for example, in the form of awarding ‘damages’, or as ‘punitive compensation’ which is sometimes available to the victims of crime. We do not recommend any substantial compensation. We usually consider a court is a more appropriate body to consider compensation claims.
28. The Council has offered £400 for time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. We are unlikely to recommend more.

Systemic Changes to Prevent Future Abuse

29. Given the circumstances of Ms X’s complaint and the accepted fault, we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Final decision

30. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault on some aspects, will not reinvestigate the complaint and are unlikely to add to the Council’s reply. We would not achieve Ms X’s aims.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman